US arm Israel

[mps]

Two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes filled with laser-guided bombs landed at Glasgow Prestwick Airport (in the UK) en-route to Israel from the US. Now the UK are basically pissed off at the US for taking advantage of their "special relationship", as the UK don't want to be preferential and back one side (purely because the amount of civilian loss being suffered by Lebanon) - which would be seen as them doing so, by acting as a "aircraft carrier" for US planes transporting arms to Israel. Having said that, out of 180 countries, the UK, US and Israel were the only countries not to support a call for a ceasefire.

Discuss.

[emptyvictory]

kick aaaamaaas asses!!

[mps]

kick aaaamaaas asses!!

Er, what?

[emptyvictory]

Er, what?

sorry Mark, that wasn't clear. War is hell but the terrorist factions in that region need to be weakend. Suppling arms to Isreal is what the US has done in the past and the UK will never be immune from these events. There has never been a treaty or truce that Hezbalha (sp?) has kept. That is historical fact.

[Juliana101]

Going to be completely honest. Nothing would please me more than the Arab world turning into a crater.

[IHopeYourAlone]

havent we been through this before when we gave arms to afghanistan. dont we ever learn?

[YourMusicSucks]

havent we been through this before when we gave arms to afghanistan. dont we ever learn?

Israel is not and will never be Afghanistan.

[xllirikx]

Here is my opinion:

Israel is as much of a terrorist state as is Hezbollah and Palestine. Discuss that, mother fuckers.

[IHopeYourAlone]

Israel is not and will never be Afghanistan.


then we were fighting communism and now we're fighting terrorism, we never thought they'd be fighting us with our own arms down the line, but it happened, and i gaurantee it can happen with isreal, sure its not as likely but you'd think we would learn from our mistakes and try a little harded to make some peace.

[FScott]

then we were fighting communism and now we're fighting terrorism, we never thought they'd be fighting us with our own arms down the line, but it happened, and i gaurantee it can happen with isreal, sure its not as likely but you'd think we would learn from our mistakes and try a little harded to make some peace.


If you can't see the difference between Afghanstan and Israel then go read a history book. Before Afghanistan used our weapons to fight the commies they were not a democracy. Israel is a democracy. What HISTORY DOES PROOVE is that democracies do not fight other democracies.

Peace doesn't involve ignoring groups like Hezbollah, thats called appeasement. And what HISTORY DOES PROVE is that appeasment (hitler) is dangerous.

[cal1082]

then we were fighting communism and now we're fighting terrorism, we never thought they'd be fighting us with our own arms down the line, but it happened, and i gaurantee it can happen with isreal, sure its not as likely but you'd think we would learn from our mistakes and try a little harded to make some peace.

First, I dont think you can completely say that we have a lesson to learn from arming Afghan.
To say that, you have to conisder the reverse scenario which perhaps might have been USSR taking over Afghan. and no telling where it goes from there.

[cal1082]

i think it's pathetic there is even a thought a some sort of peace agreement

[IHopeYourAlone]

If you can't see the difference between Afghanstan and Israel then go read a history book. Before Afghanistan used our weapons to fight the commies they were not a democracy. Israel is a democracy. What HISTORY DOES PROOVE is that democracies do not fight other democracies.

Peace doesn't involve ignoring groups like Hezbollah, thats called appeasement. And what HISTORY DOES PROVE is that appeasment (hitler) is dangerous.

It really depends on how you define democracy, hell, hitler was elected, but thats a stretch. Im really not all that worried about isreal using anything against us but i do still think we should be working towards peace, not appeasment, but peace. We can solve this situation without giving hezbollah everything. But so many people dont need to die.

[FScott]

It really depends on how you define democracy, hell, hitler was elected, but thats a stretch. Im really not all that worried about isreal using anything against us but i do still think we should be working towards peace, not appeasment, but peace. We can solve this situation without giving hezbollah everything. But so many people dont need to die.


Hitler was not elected, he was appointed.

[born to expire]

Here is my opinion:

Israel is as much of a terrorist state as is Hezbollah and Palestine. Discuss that, mother fuckers.

Defending your country/nation after years of pathetic and cowardly suicide bombings is an act of terrorism?

Let Israel tear it to shreds. Hopefully there aren't more civilian casualties, but I fully support Israel in this.

From dictionary.com:
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=act%20of%20terrorism), terrorist act (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist%20act)].




Random suicide bombings in malls, on buses, during weddings = acts of terrorism. Bombing Lebanon in order to destroy the infrastructure of a terrorist organization, but forewarning civilians of said attacks by dropping pieces of paper out of planes beforehand =/= terrorism.




That's how I see it.

[JezisHChrist]

Here is my opinion:

Israel is as much of a terrorist state as is Hezbollah and Palestine. Discuss that, mother fuckers.
My opinion tells me that you're an idiot.

[JezisHChrist]

Going to be completely honest. Nothing would please me more than the Arab world turning into a crater.
Agree completely.

[sharpenup]

Here is my opinion:

Israel is as much of a terrorist state as is Hezbollah and Palestine. Discuss that, mother fuckers.

I agree.

[JezisHChrist]

I agree.
Please back it up.

[FScott]

If you can't distingquish between a terrorists org from Israel then you obviously live in some fantasy world. And peace agreements and cease fires only drag shit out. Israel is rooting out the mother fucking cause so you can just go back to hugging trees. I bet you kiss them too

But seriously, comparing Israel to terrorist because they believe in their own existance? Go say that to a holocaust survivor.

[yutsmcgee]

If you can't see the difference between Afghanstan and Israel then go read a history book. Before Afghanistan used our weapons to fight the commies they were not a democracy. Israel is a democracy. What HISTORY DOES PROOVE is that democracies do not fight other democracies.

Peace doesn't involve ignoring groups like Hezbollah, thats called appeasement. And what HISTORY DOES PROVE is that appeasment (hitler) is dangerous.

exactly

[mikeford]

I am completely against the existance and continued existance of Israel but what they are doing is within their national rights. If the country of Lebanon is not going to take responsibility for letting a terrorist organization (hezbollah) operate unchecked in the southern portion of their country, and is not going to force said organization to stop firing rockets into israel and to give back the prisoners they took, then they deserve whatever Israel does to them.

[IHopeYourAlone]

Hitler was not elected, he was appointed.


hitler was elected, mussolini was appointed.

[FScott]

hitler was elected, mussolini was appointed.

Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.

So how did this happen? By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg. Their maneuvering, a rumor of a threatened military coup, and the urging von Papen, who had entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get supporters into Cabinet positions, finally persuaded Hindenburg to reluctantly appoint that “little corporeal” Hitler chancellor. Many involved in this intrigue, including von Papen, thought that this would bring Hitler under their control.

Hitler was appointed. Once again, go read a history book.

[IHopeYourAlone]

interesting, guess i was mistaken. no need to be a douchebag.

[FScott]

interesting, guess i was mistaken. no need to be a douchebag.


no need to be stupid

[xvszero]

The US always has and always will arm Isreal. Without our arms they probably wouldn't be around very long, and though some people might think that is a good idea, it really isn't.

[FScott]

The US always has and always will arm Isreal. Without our arms they probably wouldn't be around very long, and though some people might think that is a good idea, it really isn't.

I agree, Israel is a very critical ally to have in the middle east (ie. amongst our enemies) They give us much intelligence as of what goes on.

[Skacialist]

Hah, known about this for a longggg time, The US profits big time on these wars.
also, the loss of men means nothing to the people hauling in the cash.

[PaulsRightNut]

Here is my opinion:

Israel is as much of a terrorist state as is Hezbollah and Palestine. Discuss that, mother fuckers.

HAHA wow...just...wow.

[LostSymphonies]

all i have to say is i'm glad there is an ocean seperating me from them

[Skacialist]

Hezbollah are nice people

[sloppysoothsaye]

havent we been through this before when we gave arms to afghanistan. dont we ever learn?



It seems the answer is NO.

I"m so sadden by the ignorance of "i hope the whole arab world turns into a crator"

wow. How un aware does one have to be to believe that the world is black and white? good and evil?

america and israel are the good guys.
why? because our governments say so
our military (The strongest history has ever known) says so.

I say killing innocent adults and children makes you the bad guy.
and america has done just that since its conception

remember the native americans? they are almost all gone now. millions down to thousands in 200 years.

[Broken Parachute]

It seems the answer is NO.

I"m so sadden by the ignorance of "i hope the whole arab world turns into a crator"

wow. How un aware does one have to be to believe that the world is black and white? good and evil?

america and israel are the good guys.
why? because our governments say so
our military (The strongest history has ever known) says so.

I say killing innocent adults and children makes you the bad guy.
and america has done just that since its conception

remember the native americans? they are almost all gone now. millions down to thousands in 200 years.
Do you wanna run the country? You seem to think you'd be able to have things under control.

[xvszero]

It's interesting how you accuse people of looking at things in black and white and then say "killing innocent adults and children makes you the bad guy."

Ok, that is nice to know. Now, taking into account that both sides in the Isreal/etc. conflict have killed innocent adults and children, so both sides are apparently "bad" what now is your solution?

Just labeling sides as "bad" doesn't actually do anything. I don't support Isreal because I think they're some model nation, I support them because they're fighting against organizations who have no regard for civilian casualties whatsoever, either on the side they indiscriminately launch missiles at and blow bombs up in or their own side they hide among bringing "enemy" strikes into their own civilian populations.

Isreal is far from flawless in these conflicts but I think they fight a greater evil. How is that for some non black and white thinking, eh? Like, one side can do bad things but the other side can still be worse... OMG SHADES OF GREY!

[boysdontcry17]

US arming israel?
old news man, they've been manulipating countries for a long time

[sloppysoothsaye]

zero -- I understand and appreciate your point of view.

every society is a pyramid.
those at the top controlling the layers underneath.

countries consist of a small elite using violence and economics to further their agenda(s).

those people in power are the enemy to the people.

the rich elite.
the 1% of the 6.5 billion humans on earth control 90% of the wealth.

so it's not that america is in the wrong
and it's not that iran is in the wrong.

it's the POWER ELITE that use POOR populations to kill other poor populations for territorial gain, economic ressources, and the centralization of power. that my subjective view point considers "the bad guy"

that is not black and white.

it is WHITE LIGHT.

The world of grey is another illusion.
the world is more like a fucking rainbow of diversity and infinite possibilities.


grey is another trap the elite instill upon us peasant slaves so that we are too overwhelmed or apathetic to stap their conduits of control

[FScott]

well i guess there is only one solution: The abolishion of private property!

[richter915]

Do you wanna run the country? You seem to think you'd be able to have things under control.
I hate that argument. This is some kid on a message board and ur only come back is "well, what do u suggest". Please, come up with something logical to make him look bad.

[richter915]

Hezbollah are nice people
they mah niggaz.

[richter915]

Please back it up.
back up ur claim that the arab world should be destroyed. Yes, completely obliterate all of our enemies and rule the world...well done.

[richter915]

I am completely against the existance and continued existance of Israel but what they are doing is within their national rights. If the country of Lebanon is not going to take responsibility for letting a terrorist organization (hezbollah) operate unchecked in the southern portion of their country, and is not going to force said organization to stop firing rockets into israel and to give back the prisoners they took, then they deserve whatever Israel does to them.
I find myself agreeing with u more and more these days...makes me kinda scared.

[richter915]

If you can't distingquish between a terrorists org from Israel then you obviously live in some fantasy world. And peace agreements and cease fires only drag shit out. Israel is rooting out the mother fucking cause so you can just go back to hugging trees. I bet you kiss them too

But seriously, comparing Israel to terrorist because they believe in their own existance? Go say that to a holocaust survivor.
oh ya pulling the sympathy card, well fucking done bro. Any Jew with half a brain would know that the establishment of Israel was solely for Western powers to have a democratic ally in the Middle East which allows the West to have some influence on policy in the area. Why? Do I have to explain? And again, ur argument is flawed because ur reason for saying Isreal commits non-terrorist actions applies to groups u'll categorize as terrorist. They believe in their own existence.

[MotionIsntMeaning]

multi-quote?

[richter915]

multi-quote?
I thought it does it automatically?

[cal1082]

oh ya pulling the sympathy card, well fucking done bro. Any Jew with half a brain would know that the establishment of Israel was solely for Western powers to have a democratic ally in the Middle East which allows the West to have some influence on policy in the area. Why? Do I have to explain? And again, ur argument is flawed because ur reason for saying Isreal commits non-terrorist actions applies to groups u'll categorize as terrorist. They believe in their own existence.

I'm not Jewish, might have a little less than a half of brain, but the creation of Israel was not soley for that purpose. Where you getting your information from because what you claim as soley being the reason is only a portion of the reasons for its creation.

[richter915]

I'm not Jewish, might have a little less than a half of brain, but the creation of Israel was not soley for that purpose. Where you getting your information from because what you claim as soley being the reason is only a portion of the reasons for its creation.
On paper, I would never think that my reason was an official one for the creation of Israel. If it was, I'm kinda shocked because, to me, that's a shady reason to create a nation and remove thousands from their homes. Not something you go outright and say. You will not find what I claim as the reason for Israel's creation anywhere. That assertion was made by me based on the function of Israel in the past 60 years. The big reason that I do know was to create a home for Jews around the world and as something to serve as a safe haven for Jews. Personally, I feel that Jews let's say in the US are much safer than Jews in Israel.

[cal1082]

On paper, I would never think that my reason was an official one for the creation of Israel. If it was, I'm kinda shocked because, to me, that's a shady reason to create a nation and remove thousands from their homes. Not something you go outright and say. You will not find what I claim as the reason for Israel's creation anywhere. That assertion was made by me based on the function of Israel in the past 60 years. The big reason that I do know was to create a home for Jews around the world and as something to serve as a safe haven for Jews. Personally, I feel that Jews let's say in the US are much safer than Jews in Israel.

I might be mistaken, but if i remember right the palestinian arabs were not forcebly removed when the jewish state of israel was created. The region was under british control for a number of years prior to its creation and jewish immigrants were already there in full force.

Problems were great between the jewish immigrants and the palestinians there, and both sides lobbied for direct control of the region. Then you have plan to create 2 nations.........etc.........etc.... ..etc.......

I dont think Palestinian Arabs were removed from the land during its initial creation. This came after attacks on Israel, when Israel gained more land.

[catscradle]

It seems the answer is NO.

I"m so sadden by the ignorance of "i hope the whole arab world turns into a crator"

wow. How un aware does one have to be to believe that the world is black and white? good and evil?

america and israel are the good guys.
why? because our governments say so
our military (The strongest history has ever known) says so.

I say killing innocent adults and children makes you the bad guy.
and america has done just that since its conception

remember the native americans? they are almost all gone now. millions down to thousands in 200 years.

How can anyone ever take you seriously if alls you do is exaggerate your facts and assume every single person has a dichotomist outlook on the world.

Sure the U.S. has had its rough spots, but so has every other nation on this planet. Palestinian terrorist groups have killed plenty of innocent adults and children, so how does that make it good. What is it a bad vs. bad war going on. By your standards every nation is a bad nation, so should we throw the world into a state of anarchy and live like heathens w/o any types of morals or ethics. Israel doesn't have the cleanest hands, but their hands are a lot cleaner than the terrorist groups they are fighting against. And if you can't acknowledge that Israel is defending itself from terrorist attacks and fighting for its very own life, then you are sadly mistaken. You should read cal's history lesson above me b/c it is pretty correct. The british controlled areas were to leave the palestinians with their own state and the jews with theirs, with Jerusalem left to be run by the UN. The palestinians didn't like this and once the British left in the late spring of 1948 the jews declared the area the state of israel shortly after under the 1947 UN partition plan. Shortly after that war broke out as nations such as Egypt, Jordan, lebanon, syria, yemen, saudi arabia and iraq invaded. And since than the region has been filled with turmoil and israel has been fighting for its very own existence.

Fyi, i'm not going to say what our govt did to the native americans was a good thing, but there were never millions of native americans murdered in north america, so you might want to change your numbers there a bit champ.

[Justin_stacy]

I might be mistaken, but if i remember right the palestinian arabs were not forcebly removed when the jewish state of israel was created. The region was under british control for a number of years prior to its creation and jewish immigrants were already there in full force.

Problems were great between the jewish immigrants and the palestinians there, and both sides lobbied for direct control of the region. Then you have plan to create 2 nations.........etc.........etc.... ..etc.......

I dont think Palestinian Arabs were removed from the land during its initial creation. This came after attacks on Israel, when Israel gained more land.


Palestinians were removed, but so were Jews. The UN set the partition based on population divides but as this system is imperfect some people had to be moved.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Fyi, i'm not going to say what our govt did to the native americans was a good thing, but there were never millions of native americans in north america, so you might want to change your numbers there a bit champ.

What the fuck? Before you condescend to others - "change your numbers there a bit champ" - why don't you bother to read a damn book? Even during the early 20th century, the absolute LOWEST estimates of the pre-Columbian population of indigenous peoples in the Americas was 8.4 MILLION. The high was arround 117 MILLION. Today, most scholars and historians agree that there were probably somewhere between 50 and 60 MILLION indigenous people in the Americas. So yeah, there were EASILY millions of Natives, and EASILY millions were killed (it's estimated that disease - sometimes intentionally spread, sometimes accidentally - war, massacres, and so forth resulted in the detah of about 80% of the native population). Political Scientist RJ Rummel, who is a world renowned researcher on government violence, says that somewhere between 2 million and 15 million people were killed INTENTIONALLY during the colonization of the Americas."Even if these figures are remotely true," writes Rummel, "then this still make this subjugation of the Americas one of the bloodier, centuries long, democides in world history."

[catscradle]

What the fuck? Before you condescend to others - "change your numbers there a bit champ" - why don't you bother to read a damn book? Even during the early 20th century, the absolute LOWEST estimates of the pre-Columbian population of indigenous peoples in the Americas was 8.4 MILLION. The high was arround 117 MILLION. Today, most scholars and historians agree that there were probably somewhere between 50 and 60 MILLION indigenous people in the Americas. So yeah, there were EASILY millions of Natives, and EASILY millions were killed (it's estimated that disease - sometimes intentionally spread, sometimes accidentally - war, massacres, and so forth resulted in the detah of about 80% of the native population). Political Scientist RJ Rummel, who is a world renowned researcher on government violence, says that somewhere between 2 million and 15 million people were killed INTENTIONALLY during the colonization of the Americas."Even if these figures are remotely true," writes Rummel, "then this still make this subjugation of the Americas one of the bloodier, centuries long, democides in world history."

from my view of what he said(and there is a typo in that sentence mind you as i rushed and forgot to put murdered in the sentence, so i'll fix that to not further confuse people), it look's like he's talking about the U.S. killing millions of native americans in the U.S. and north america where there were than far less millions of native people murdered at the time of european coloniation. Many died of new diseases that were introduced, which far outways the ones that were murdered. This is a natural thing that would happen eventually anyway b/c there's no way they would stay that isloated forever.

Unlike south america, where the groups of indigenous people had advanced social and urbanized cultures focused around large cities, the indeginous people of the U.S. had nowhere near the advanced urbanization as the south american peoples with "communties" that couldnt sustain more than a few thousand people, only handful of these existed and none were around by the time explorers came . So read what i quote please and as i said what the u.s. did to it's native peoples and once again, by the time the europeans came there were never that many natives murdered, as many of the populations had choked themselves out due to their exponential growth by the time europeans came and/or died of disease like you have pointed out. So there was far less than millions of natives murdered by the europeans when euro colonization started.

The u.s killed and displaced many native peoples, but never did they murder millions. You provided one scholars input, but i guarntee that there are more scholars that disagree with him than agree on his theory of democide on the side of the american govt..

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

from my view of what he said(and there is a typo in that sentence mind you as i rushed and forgot to put murdered in the sentence, so i'll fix that to not further confuse people), it look's like he's talking about the U.S. killing millions of native americans in the U.S. and north america where there were than far less millions of native people murdered at the time of european coloniation. Many died of new diseases that were introduced, which far outways the ones that were murdered. This is a natural thing that would happen eventually anyway b/c there's no way they would stay that isloated forever.

Unlike south america, where the groups of indigenous people had advanced social and urbanized cultures focused around large cities, the indeginous people of the U.S. had nowhere near the advanced urbanization as the south american peoples with "communties" that couldnt sustain more than a few thousand people, only handful of these existed and none were around by the time explorers came . So read what i quote please and as i said what the u.s. did to it's native peoples and once again, by the time the europeans came there were never that many natives murdered, as many of the populations had choked themselves out due to their exponential growth by the time europeans came and/or died of disease like you have pointed out. So there was far less than millions of natives murdered by the europeans when euro colonization started.

The u.s killed and displaced many native peoples, but never did they murder millions. You provided one scholars input, but i guarntee that there are more scholars that disagree with him than agree on his theory of democide on the side of the american govt..


Problem #1: If you have a problem with my sources, provide an alternative source that criticizes them or go read Rummel's book and tell me why I should disregard it based on logical analysis. You can't just say, "Well some people disagree with your source" and expect me to care (the books called "Death By Government". You can also check out a synopis here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM, note the table that puts the total American Indian death total at over 13 million killed intentionally between the two continents.)

Problem #2: Even if you provided a counter-source, I guarantee you it would not indict my statements. The consensus is around 54 million people lived in the Americas prior to colonization. Now, unless you're going to tell me that 53 million of those people lived in a South American content that for some unexplained reason had a population density over 53 times greater than that of its neighbor to the north, you have to accept that yes, prior to Columbus, there were millions of people in what is now the United States. Even if, as you say, the native civilizations were in a state of decline when the colonizers arrived, and even if North America was comparatively less developed than South America, the number would still EASILY be around 20 million natives in North America.

Problem #3: You say that accidental deaths by disease outweighed all killings. That's true. But there is still the issue of you drawing a dichotomy between "accidental death" and "death by disease" - many times, as when settlers distributed blankets infected with smallpox to natives, disease was intentionally introduced onto the natives to expedite their destruction. Whether or not that was inevitable, it's still murder. If I shoot someonein the face, I can't say, "she was going to die sooner or later so it doesn't count": murder is still murder, even if the victim's days were numbered.

[catscradle]

Problem #1: If you have a problem with my sources, provide an alternative source that criticizes them or go read Rummel's book and tell me why I should disregard it based on logical analysis. You can't just say, "Well some people disagree with your source" and expect me to care (the books called "Death By Government". You can also check out a synopis here: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM, note the table that puts the total American Indian death total at over 13 million killed intentionally between the two continents.)

Problem #2: Even if you provided a counter-source, I guarantee you it would not indict my statements. The consensus is around 54 million people lived in the Americas prior to colonization. Now, unless you're going to tell me that 53 million of those people lived in a South American content that for some unexplained reason had a population density over 53 times greater than that of its neighbor to the north, you have to accept that yes, prior to Columbus, there were millions of people in what is now the United States. Even if, as you say, the native civilizations were in a state of decline when the colonizers arrived, and even if North America was comparatively less developed than South America, the number would still EASILY be around 20 million natives in North America.

Problem #3: You say that accidental deaths by disease outweighed all killings. That's true. But there is still the issue of you drawing a dichotomy between "accidental death" and "death by disease" - many times, as when settlers distributed blankets infected with smallpox to natives, disease was intentionally introduced onto the natives to expedite their destruction. Whether or not that was inevitable, it's still murder. If I shoot someonein the face, I can't say, "she was going to die sooner or later so it doesn't count": murder is still murder, even if the victim's days were numbered.

Theres no doubt that there was somewhere btwn 50-60 million natives living in the 2 continents and i'm not going to say that many of them werent murdered and killed by settlers, but for sloppytruthsaya, or w/e his name is, is saying that the u.s. is a bad country for doing this many yrs ago and i'm saying that i disagree with his opinion that bc of this we are a bad country and should be presently classified as bad guys. Things like this have happened since the dawn of time as superior peoples came to dominate another group. It is a fact of life.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Putting aside that its horribly racist and ehtnocentrist to say that the europeans were a "superior people", I don't entirely disagree. We can't fault the current US regime for what happened in the colonial period. But nor can we simply forget about those who died. We should never brush off mass murder as "inevitable" unless we want it to return to confront us again. Did you know that while Suharto was killing hundreds of thousands of Timorese, the US was selling him planes with which to do it more efficiently? Or that we supplied Saddam with chemcial weapons to exterminate the Kurds? That wasnt hundreds of years ago, that less than 30 years ago (in East Timor) and less than 20 years ago (in Iraq). For reasons like that, we have to be aware of the atrocities past and present regimes have committed so that we can guard against them in the future.